RainCloudz973

RainCloudz973 t1_jduwdtc wrote

That’s another issue to tackle as a city then. But language contains intention, so people will critique inappropriate uses of it in order to curtail the potential for bad intentions seeping into one’s actions. For example, I have less trust in someone’s intentions who refers to queer people as “f*gs” when discussing how to help the queer community, than someone who speaks of them respectfully. It’s not a perfect science of course, but a safe general rule of thumb to keep people on a positive agenda when it comes to fixing societal problems.

3

RainCloudz973 t1_jduu6wc wrote

It’s the language of referring to humans as though they were rats that people take an issue with, not the notion of maintaining a train station. Ideally Newark would provide some form of shelter or housing for them. But if that’s not the case, it seems a bit cold to just wish they’d be “cleared out” with no follow-up plan.

5

RainCloudz973 t1_jcjmd6a wrote

The comments here don’t sound responsive to the actual article.

He never denied the mistake or attempted to justify it. The entire article is essentially saying, “get off Newark’s dick, we made a mistake but we are working well at other things, and you all dragging this feels like an excuse to dogpile Newark as always” which is a totally understandable feeling. Especially when there were jokes like “who would want to be sister cities with Newark?” made. He’s defensive because he mismanaged the reputation of an already undervalued city and people are pointing & laughing. It’s embarrassing and he’s human. I know he should’ve been smart enough to prevent this from happening at all. But critiquing this response he’s giving just sounds unnecessarily cold.

8